Have to agree. If you have non-stop action you sell Bond short. But then I said that with DAD, who'd have thought I'd be saying it again with this?
Can't help thinking that Bond has been badly buffetted by the Die Hard and then Bourne films, which are extended chase scenes, where they'd be better off with the oneupmanship of stuff like Pulp Fiction: classic scenes, point-scoring dialogue, change of location and yes, attitude.
ok. just saw quantum of solace last night, and i didn't love it. it was going to be difficult to pull off another classic like casino royal but i think the director and editors botched it. which for me, as an editor, was a real let down because it was the editing that made casino royal so brilliant. the hyper editing of the opening sequence, the stupid inter-cutting with the horse race, it all made me sick. and like some reviewer said...i was mostly bored and ****ed off through the first 20 minutes.
the good stuff...daniel craig, of course. he still kicks ass and m. i do hope they get another director for the next one, though. quintin tarantino would be perfect. and me as the editor, of course. dreams can come true. why not?
Just saw it yesterday and in my opinion this movie is not a Bond movie! It lacked everything that has made the Bond movies what they are. It was quite obvious that they rushed this script to beat the writer's strike. I'm certainly hoping that they start getting things back on track with the next movie and give us a Bond movie we all love and deserve!
I gave a positive review to CR, but upon additional viewings I liked it less because I felt something was missing, it's all the little things that were missing. The little things that make Bond different from all the other action movies.
Reading various reviews and comments from long time members of this forum, I think other folks miss this part of Bond too.
{[]
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited November 2008
I always love to see an idea well-framed and presented. This reviewer accomplishes that, and I agree with the points made.
An aside: For anyone who accuses CBn of simply being 'in the tank' for QoS, I would strongly encourage you to check out the 'Member Reviews' forum. There, each member begins a thread with his or her own review, and then takes comments. The praise and derision for QoS there is---like here---seemingly near 'even' in its polarity.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Nice review...although the invocation of Le Carre's name soured me somewhat at the start. In my opinion, a Bond story should never be imbued with the style of a writer who openly loathes Fleming's character.
This appeared on my newspaper's op-ed page this morning. It isn't a film review--it's political commentary by the syndicated conservative columnist Mona Charen--but she hits on something that annoyed the hell out of me in QoS: the stereotypical "ugly American" CIA station chief. Whether or not you agree with Charen's politics, she makes a good case for the depiction of America as being at least forty years out of date. . .
Absurdity, cartoonish violence, sexism, campiness -- these are no bars to enjoying a matinee with my teenaged boys. So off we went to see Daniel Craig as James Bond do his suave star turn in Quantum of Solace over the weekend.
We ought to have known, from the impenetrable title, that this was not going to be satisfying entertainment. "Quantum" means -- roughly -- amount, and "solace" of course means comfort. Since this is a story about revenge, we are asked to believe that Bond achieves a measure of comfort from dispatching any number of bad guys unfortunate enough to cross his path. The Bond girl, too, is acting out her own revenge fantasy. Unfortunately, there was hardly a quantum of coherence to the story.
Bond is seeking revenge for the murder of his love Vesper (introduced in Casino Royale). Except that Vesper betrayed him. Or has he forgiven her? We aren't sure how he feels because the dialogue is extremely sketchy. Craig's Bond is not the winking, debonair skirt chaser of earlier iterations. He is all taut energy and grim determination. That's fine. The nudge-nudge naughtiness of the earlier Bonds was cloying. But Quantum's plot line is so neglected (nearly all of the focus is on chase scenes and hand-to-hand fighting) that we don't get any clear idea of why this particularly menacing Bond is killing people without so much as a backward glance.
The vast conspiracy in this film concerns a fiend who uses an environmental firm as a cover to corner the market on the world's most precious resource -- water. A little harder to swallow than Goldfinger's plan to corner the market on gold perhaps. OK, whatever. But the film's writers and producers could not resist making the CIA a heavy. The CIA, we are told, has no objections to propping up corrupt and murderous thugs in Latin America so long as a few individuals get a cut of the action. Explaining his plan to his CIA contact, (I quote from memory) the villain notes that the U.S. surely does not want another Marxist "giving away wealth" to the people of Latin America. (The British are portrayed as having rogue elements, a high-ranking minister and a few secret agents on the take, but not the entire security service.)
Here we go again. As it happens, I hold no brief for the CIA. As far as I'm concerned, it's a dysfunctional agency that has been wrong about most of the important threats of our lifetimes. In 1981, noting the careerism, caution, and lack of elan he saw, Robert Gates said the CIA had "a case of advanced bureaucratic arteriosclerosis CIA is slowly turning into the Department of Agriculture." But the idea -- and it is a hoary one -- that the CIA is in the business of creating evil, right-wing dictatorships in Latin America is just laughable. Besides, the CIA in the film is clearly meant to stand for the U.S.
Yes, the U.S. had a role in propping up dictators in the 1950s and 60s. And yes, it would have been ideal if those countries had moderate democrats we could support. But they usually didn't. It was often a choice between a Soviet-backed thug like Fidel Castro or a right-wing regime.
But in the 1980s and since, the United States did everything possible to find the moderate forces in places like El Salvador and Nicaragua. We enjoyed great success in spreading democracy and free markets in Latin America. Don't look to Hollywood for instruction, but today that progress is profoundly threatened -- not by right-wing nut jobs as the movies would have it -- but by genuine left-wing dictators and would-be dictators. Do the names Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, and Daniel Ortega not ring a bell? Last week, Castro acolyte Chavez threatened to send tanks into states that refused to vote for his slate of candidates in local elections. Morales, the left-wing leader of Bolivia, had stopped cooperating with U.S. anti-drug efforts in his country and has arrested domestic opponents. Ortega, returned to power in Nicaragua by a 38 percent plurality vote, is repeating the tactics that made him so unpopular in the 1980s -- stifling dissent, fixing elections, and employing street thugs to intimidate the opposition.
Hollywood types were delighted with the election of Barack Obama, some hoping that the choice would improve America's image abroad. It's a little ironic, because Hollywood's portrayal of the U.S., in a thousand films like this one, goes a long way toward creating that anti-American sentiment in the first place.
Considering the police action we're still engaged with in Iraq, started for reasons that were outright lies, not offended by Beam at all.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited November 2008
Interesting article, to be sure---although as she points out, the U.S. is rarely portrayed as anything other than evil in these sorts of films, so it's a bit harsh to hang this squarely on James Bond's shoulders...
...especially when there seem to be so many other reasons for people to dislike CR's angry and misunderstood kid brother
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Considering the police action we're still engaged with in Iraq, started for reasons that were outright lies, not offended by Beam at all.
Of course not.
Just think it's sad there's obviously schmucks like Beam making decisions that the rank and file of the military then have to deal with, at huge huge cost (thinking lives not $). Has there been a miltary conflict since WWII that could be said, our decision for entering into it was reasonably honorable? If there has been it slips my mind amid all the crassness and stupidity. Love the military, hate how they get used and abused by those in power.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited November 2008
I'm not sure any country in existence is free of error, over the course of (even recent) history.
[rest of response self-censored]
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Oh I'm sure. The Beams of this world do indeed seem to be running things.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
At least he got fired at the end...
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I write a film review column for a local paper here in Utah Valley called The Foothill Breeze, and I just sent in my review of QOS. So here it is, for anyone interested:
Quantum of Solace
Andy Andersen
Staff Writer
3 Stars
While Quantum of Solace isn’t the ideal follow-up to Casino Royale that many fans may expect, it’s still a top-notch James Bond film, and much like Casino Royale, stets itself apart from the rest of the series.
Helmed by critically acclaimed director Marc Forster (Monsters Ball, Stranger than Fiction), Quantum of Solace is the first ever sequel in the long-running Bond franchise, picking up right where Casino Royale left off. After interrogating Mr. White, Bond begins to uncover the organization—now known as “Quantum”—that blackmailed his lost love Vesper. With the help of the beautiful yet lethal Bolivian agent Camille, Bond sets out on an action-packed mission to stop leading member of Quantum Dominic Greene from taking over the world’s water supply, and ultimately to find a small measure of emotional comfort, or a “quantum of solace.”
While this film lacks the focus and concentration of Casino Royale, it exceeds it in the excellence of the cast. In his second outing as 007, Daniel Craig once again proves to be the best Bond in the franchises history. By making a three-dimensional human being out of a one-dimensional screen hero, Craig brings to life the more human James Bond that writer Ian Fleming created in his books.
Supporting Craig is a fresh and talented supporting cast of returning characters from Casino Royale, as well as some great new talent. Judi Dench is again wonderful as MI6 boss M, whose interesting relationship with Bond makes for some of the most captivating dialogue in the film. Mathieu Almalric is mesmerizing as the film’s weasel-like villain, and will ultimately become the film’s real hidden gem. The two Bond girls of Quantum of Solace also give breakthrough performances. Gemma Arterton plays Agent Fields, a delightful tribute to the Bond girls of the 60’s. Olga Kurylenko, whose most notable films include mediocre action flicks like Hitman and Max Payne, proves to be more than just another pretty face as Camille, Bond’s mirror image and emotional equal in the film.
While the cast is a powerful element in making the film a classic in the Bond series, it is Marc Forster’s distinct directorial style that makes Quantum of Solace an original yet vintage Bond film. The film’s flaws are a little obvious, however. The non-stop action, though brilliantly coordinated and beautifully shot, gets slightly tiresome and leaves little room for the audience to breathe and creates a slight lack of story. Since the film continues the “Bond’s origins” story arc of Casino Royale, however, the lack of story amongst the action is replaced with a strong emotional undertone that holds the film together.
And where Forster lacks in focus, he makes up for in style. His blend of the grittiness and dark realism of Casino Royale with classic Bond elements is the heart of this contemporary yet retro Bond film. The production design, for example, is “vintage Bond”, harking back to the sets of legendary Bond production designer Ken Adam. The most notable of these vintage locations include Forster’s redesigned MI6 headquarters and the beautiful Bolivian hotel set-pieces.
The classic “gun barrel sequence” also makes a triumphant return at the end of the film to assure audiences that, while Quantum of Solace is a new direction for the series, it is still a James Bond film.
Comments
http://movies.msn.com/movies/critics-reviews/?GT1=28001
Can't help thinking that Bond has been badly buffetted by the Die Hard and then Bourne films, which are extended chase scenes, where they'd be better off with the oneupmanship of stuff like Pulp Fiction: classic scenes, point-scoring dialogue, change of location and yes, attitude.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
the good stuff...daniel craig, of course. he still kicks ass and m. i do hope they get another director for the next one, though. quintin tarantino would be perfect. and me as the editor, of course. dreams can come true. why not?
{[]
http://debrief.commanderbond.net/index.php?showtopic=51624
An aside: For anyone who accuses CBn of simply being 'in the tank' for QoS, I would strongly encourage you to check out the 'Member Reviews' forum. There, each member begins a thread with his or her own review, and then takes comments. The praise and derision for QoS there is---like here---seemingly near 'even' in its polarity.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Nice review...although the invocation of Le Carre's name soured me somewhat at the start. In my opinion, a Bond story should never be imbued with the style of a writer who openly loathes Fleming's character.
Source: townhall.com
Quantum of Nonsense
by Mona Charen
Absurdity, cartoonish violence, sexism, campiness -- these are no bars to enjoying a matinee with my teenaged boys. So off we went to see Daniel Craig as James Bond do his suave star turn in Quantum of Solace over the weekend.
We ought to have known, from the impenetrable title, that this was not going to be satisfying entertainment. "Quantum" means -- roughly -- amount, and "solace" of course means comfort. Since this is a story about revenge, we are asked to believe that Bond achieves a measure of comfort from dispatching any number of bad guys unfortunate enough to cross his path. The Bond girl, too, is acting out her own revenge fantasy. Unfortunately, there was hardly a quantum of coherence to the story.
Bond is seeking revenge for the murder of his love Vesper (introduced in Casino Royale). Except that Vesper betrayed him. Or has he forgiven her? We aren't sure how he feels because the dialogue is extremely sketchy. Craig's Bond is not the winking, debonair skirt chaser of earlier iterations. He is all taut energy and grim determination. That's fine. The nudge-nudge naughtiness of the earlier Bonds was cloying. But Quantum's plot line is so neglected (nearly all of the focus is on chase scenes and hand-to-hand fighting) that we don't get any clear idea of why this particularly menacing Bond is killing people without so much as a backward glance.
The vast conspiracy in this film concerns a fiend who uses an environmental firm as a cover to corner the market on the world's most precious resource -- water. A little harder to swallow than Goldfinger's plan to corner the market on gold perhaps. OK, whatever. But the film's writers and producers could not resist making the CIA a heavy. The CIA, we are told, has no objections to propping up corrupt and murderous thugs in Latin America so long as a few individuals get a cut of the action. Explaining his plan to his CIA contact, (I quote from memory) the villain notes that the U.S. surely does not want another Marxist "giving away wealth" to the people of Latin America. (The British are portrayed as having rogue elements, a high-ranking minister and a few secret agents on the take, but not the entire security service.)
Here we go again. As it happens, I hold no brief for the CIA. As far as I'm concerned, it's a dysfunctional agency that has been wrong about most of the important threats of our lifetimes. In 1981, noting the careerism, caution, and lack of elan he saw, Robert Gates said the CIA had "a case of advanced bureaucratic arteriosclerosis CIA is slowly turning into the Department of Agriculture." But the idea -- and it is a hoary one -- that the CIA is in the business of creating evil, right-wing dictatorships in Latin America is just laughable. Besides, the CIA in the film is clearly meant to stand for the U.S.
Yes, the U.S. had a role in propping up dictators in the 1950s and 60s. And yes, it would have been ideal if those countries had moderate democrats we could support. But they usually didn't. It was often a choice between a Soviet-backed thug like Fidel Castro or a right-wing regime.
But in the 1980s and since, the United States did everything possible to find the moderate forces in places like El Salvador and Nicaragua. We enjoyed great success in spreading democracy and free markets in Latin America. Don't look to Hollywood for instruction, but today that progress is profoundly threatened -- not by right-wing nut jobs as the movies would have it -- but by genuine left-wing dictators and would-be dictators. Do the names Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, and Daniel Ortega not ring a bell? Last week, Castro acolyte Chavez threatened to send tanks into states that refused to vote for his slate of candidates in local elections. Morales, the left-wing leader of Bolivia, had stopped cooperating with U.S. anti-drug efforts in his country and has arrested domestic opponents. Ortega, returned to power in Nicaragua by a 38 percent plurality vote, is repeating the tactics that made him so unpopular in the 1980s -- stifling dissent, fixing elections, and employing street thugs to intimidate the opposition.
Hollywood types were delighted with the election of Barack Obama, some hoping that the choice would improve America's image abroad. It's a little ironic, because Hollywood's portrayal of the U.S., in a thousand films like this one, goes a long way toward creating that anti-American sentiment in the first place.
Thanks for psting Hardy.
...especially when there seem to be so many other reasons for people to dislike CR's angry and misunderstood kid brother
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Of course not.
[rest of response self-censored]
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Quantum of Solace
Andy Andersen
Staff Writer
3 Stars
While Quantum of Solace isn’t the ideal follow-up to Casino Royale that many fans may expect, it’s still a top-notch James Bond film, and much like Casino Royale, stets itself apart from the rest of the series.
Helmed by critically acclaimed director Marc Forster (Monsters Ball, Stranger than Fiction), Quantum of Solace is the first ever sequel in the long-running Bond franchise, picking up right where Casino Royale left off. After interrogating Mr. White, Bond begins to uncover the organization—now known as “Quantum”—that blackmailed his lost love Vesper. With the help of the beautiful yet lethal Bolivian agent Camille, Bond sets out on an action-packed mission to stop leading member of Quantum Dominic Greene from taking over the world’s water supply, and ultimately to find a small measure of emotional comfort, or a “quantum of solace.”
While this film lacks the focus and concentration of Casino Royale, it exceeds it in the excellence of the cast. In his second outing as 007, Daniel Craig once again proves to be the best Bond in the franchises history. By making a three-dimensional human being out of a one-dimensional screen hero, Craig brings to life the more human James Bond that writer Ian Fleming created in his books.
Supporting Craig is a fresh and talented supporting cast of returning characters from Casino Royale, as well as some great new talent. Judi Dench is again wonderful as MI6 boss M, whose interesting relationship with Bond makes for some of the most captivating dialogue in the film. Mathieu Almalric is mesmerizing as the film’s weasel-like villain, and will ultimately become the film’s real hidden gem. The two Bond girls of Quantum of Solace also give breakthrough performances. Gemma Arterton plays Agent Fields, a delightful tribute to the Bond girls of the 60’s. Olga Kurylenko, whose most notable films include mediocre action flicks like Hitman and Max Payne, proves to be more than just another pretty face as Camille, Bond’s mirror image and emotional equal in the film.
While the cast is a powerful element in making the film a classic in the Bond series, it is Marc Forster’s distinct directorial style that makes Quantum of Solace an original yet vintage Bond film. The film’s flaws are a little obvious, however. The non-stop action, though brilliantly coordinated and beautifully shot, gets slightly tiresome and leaves little room for the audience to breathe and creates a slight lack of story. Since the film continues the “Bond’s origins” story arc of Casino Royale, however, the lack of story amongst the action is replaced with a strong emotional undertone that holds the film together.
And where Forster lacks in focus, he makes up for in style. His blend of the grittiness and dark realism of Casino Royale with classic Bond elements is the heart of this contemporary yet retro Bond film. The production design, for example, is “vintage Bond”, harking back to the sets of legendary Bond production designer Ken Adam. The most notable of these vintage locations include Forster’s redesigned MI6 headquarters and the beautiful Bolivian hotel set-pieces.
The classic “gun barrel sequence” also makes a triumphant return at the end of the film to assure audiences that, while Quantum of Solace is a new direction for the series, it is still a James Bond film.